Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

My point is that the government lies and cannot be trusted...even their scientists.

Nixon didn't hide anything about it huh? I have not the time nor the patience to teach you to drink water from a glass.

To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must cultivate our personal life; and to cultivate our personal life, we must first set our hearts right.

Scrogdog,
If you watched the video of these scientists you would know that they are pleading for a reopening of the case to be brought before scientists. What more can they do to make it more “peer reviewed”?

One question: If a demolition crew only placed explosives in one quarter of the base of a skyscraper, off to one side, would it still fall straight down into its footprint, or would it tilt to the side as it falls?

You seem to want to stand next to the guy with the most medals on his lapel.

Scrogdog,
If you watched the video of these scientists you would know that they are pleading for a reopening of the case to be brought before scientists. What more can they do to make it more “peer reviewed”?

One question: If a demolition crew only placed explosives in one quarter of the base of a skyscraper, off to one side, would it still fall straight down into its footprint, or would it tilt to the side as it falls?

You seem to want to stand next to the guy with the most medals on his lapel.

Brian, I ask that you try to undertand. The reason science will not re-open the case is because science has already made its case! In order to reopen it, you would need to show how those white papers are wrong.

Pretty hard to do without actually reading them. Yes?

Every single point that the videos bring up is addressed. You'll need to do some reading and some investigation. Some of those papers I posted are quite long, and are chock full of advanced formulas and math.

So, given that you won't even read the science, and I can only assume that is also the case with your experts, there is nothing to review, since you have not read, nor have you made an actual case against what science HAS ALREADY SAID.

Because of that, there is no reason to re-open it. We have a youtube video up against MIT white papers. None of the youtube material addresses the actual science, they only make bold and unsubstantiated claims.

They are perfectly welcome to properly challenge what was said. Of course, one would need to read what was actually said first.

The thing that you seem to be missing is that ANY of them are welcome to challenge the science. But you can only do that with more science. Not one of them has performed any science with regards to this matter.

And once again, you do not read you do not listen. The whole idea behind progressive collapse is to keep building from toppling in to each other. It does not matter where charges are placed. What matters is was there enough damage to inititate progressive collapse. If so, then progressive collapse proceeds as normal.

The building would NOT topple, by design. Again, all there for you in the science. Which you refuse to read. Brilliant!

I even invited you to observe the version with lots of pretty pictures! One section is called "BUILDINGS DON'T TOPPLE".

Brian, I ask that you try to undertand. The reason science will not re-open the case is because science has already made its case! In order to reopen it, you would need to show how those white papers are wrong.

Pretty hard to do without actually reading them. Yes?

Every single point that the videos bring up is addressed. You'll need to do some reading and some investigation. Some of those papers I posted are quite long, and are chock full of advanced formulas and math.

So, given that you won't even read the science, and I can only assume that is also the case with your experts, there is nothing to review, since you have not read, nor have you made an actual case against what science HAS ALREADY SAID.

Because of that, there is no reason to re-open it. We have a youtube video up against MIT white papers. None of the youtube material addresses the actual science, they only make bold and unsubstantiated claims.

They are perfectly welcome to properly challenge what was said. Of course, one would need to read what was actually said first.

The thing that you seem to be missing is that ANY of them are welcome to challenge the science. But you can only do that with more science. Not one of them has performed any science with regards to this matter.

You avoided my qustion. Will a skyscraper fall straight into its footprint if only one quarter to one half of its foundation is taken out? If you can read and understand these white papers you should be able to answer this question.

You avoided my qustion. Will a skyscraper fall straight into its footprint if only one quarter to one half of its foundation is taken out? If you can read and understand these white papers you should be able to answer this question.

I most certainly DID anser your question. As I said, it does not matter where charges are placed! Only that progressive collapse is initiated.

My, my. If you could only read!

There is much more to progressive collapse than the foundation. Much, much more. Unfortunately, since you refuse to read about it you will continue to wallow in ignorance.

A situation which seems par for the course for you.

And with that gents, I'm done for today. I'll try to review replies over the weekend.

To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must cultivate our personal life; and to cultivate our personal life, we must first set our hearts right.

We see one side using facts as it suits their politics... while the other side wants the facts to be front/center without politics.

History tells us which side will win is based on whether folks are cronies or free thinkers.

And history also shows us that pain (financial pain usually is the foremost one) is what it takes for the cronies to become free thinkers. On that basis... re-electing BHO might be a good idea... so everyone can feel enough pain to think for themselves rather than parroting the 'party line'. The result in GA's opinion would be BOTH parties would become more responsive to the will of the people.

The real looser when too many folks behave as cronies is... even the cronies get screwed sooner or later. Wonder how many cronies getting screwed it will take to have a majority of free thinkers on an election day?

As I said, it does not matter where charges are placed! Only that progressive collapse is initiated.

That is double talk. In order to get progressive collapse (the uniform and simultaneous dropping of one floor onto another) you need to weaken the supports of the first floor to fall instantaneously. That would not be accomplished by only weakening half of a skyscraper’s vertical columns.

I’d like to see you sell that one to a skyscraper demolition expert. That’s a pay-per-view that I would gladly pay for.

And the fact that no analysis was done on building 7 debris doesn’t arouse your curiosity either. WOW! And you call me dense. But just like the UFO phenomenon that scientists like to comment on, the lack of evidence doesn’t stop them from forming a conclusion.

This all makes one wonder if high buildings are purposely built with charges set, so if some unforeseen event occurs they can avoid them toppling like trees. Imagine what would have happened if one side of a tower was cut down low. A huge part of lower Manhattan would have been crushed.